Rose Still Doesn't Make A Case To Enter Hall

PRESS BOX - Other Voices | Commentary from Across the Nation on Pete Rose

January 11, 2004|By Rick Morrissey, Chicago Tribune

Peter Gammons, ESPN's esteemed baseball analyst, made an interesting argument for Pete Rose's induction into the National Baseball Hall of Fame.

Gammons likened Rose to someone who is caught cheating in graduate school. Should that person have his undergraduate degree taken away because of the later sin? Gammons argues that he shouldn't.

Where the logic falls apart in regard to Rose, who has a B.A. in B.S., is that you can't take away what someone never had in the first place. Charlie Hustle never had his plaque in Cooperstown.

Rose's case is more like this: A convicted felon doesn't lose all his rights as a citizen, but he does lose his right to vote in some states. The rationale is that once you make such a serious error in judgment, you should forfeit the privilege of voting.

No one can take away Rose's accomplishments as a player, but there's nothing wrong with withholding an honor.

That's what the hall of fame is: an honor society. It's a case-by-case honor society, and Rose has a bad case here.